David Tyree is a moron

[oddball]

I'm just curious on this, how does all this religion bashing make you any better than David Tyree? Just curious. Hate is hate, no matter how you mask it.

[Dexter Morgan]

The fearmongering, demagoguery and outright lies coming from the other side is what frustrates me to no end.

We all know that in my opinion there's no legitimate reason under the Constitution to ban marriage equality. So maybe it's not surprising that they would have to stoop so low.

Not surprising, but still frustrating.

FYP.

I'm happy for those that this ruling made happy. I understand those it doesn't make happy. The best time will be when it's resolved for good in whatever fashion and the country can move on.

Really? You understand these people? I certainly don't. Gay New Yorkers getting married? What does it have to do with them? Why would it make them unhappy? What effect does that have on their and their families lives.

[Cosmic]

I'm just curious on this, how does all this religion bashing make you any better than David Tyree? Just curious. Hate is hate, no matter how you mask it.

I'm not sure where all of the religion "bashing" has been in this thread... I just haven't seen it. "Religion" does not mean anti-gay-marriage: there are some religions that are more than happy to marry gays, and that has been mentioned in this thread. It is not religion bashing, then; it is a disagreement with specific religious groups. If you feel criticism of these groups has been too harsh, I'll say this: supporters of gay marriage view said groups as perpetuating a civil rights disgrace. Today, we would feel free to "bash" slave owners, or those who put burning crosses onto people's lawns, or those who were against the women's suffrage movement. Gay marriage supporters believe that an injustice is occurring right now that is on the level of those other events.

The fearmongering, demagoguery and outright lies coming from the other side is what frustrates me to no end.

We all know that in my opinion there's no legitimate reason under the Constitution to ban marriage equality. So maybe it's not surprising that they would have to stoop so low.

Not surprising, but still frustrating.

FYP.

I'm happy for those that this ruling made happy. I understand those it doesn't make happy. The best time will be when it's resolved for good in whatever fashion and the country can move on.

Really? You understand these people? I certainly don't. Gay New Yorkers getting married? What does it have to do with them? Why would it make them unhappy? What effect does that have on their and their families lives.

I do understand those who are against gay marriage, I really do. In this thread, some people think that because gays can't have children, that society shouldn't endorse their relationship. Some people believe that it's against their religion. I understand where they're coming from, but that doesn't mean that I have to agree. You can think that gay marriage is wrong, and I can respect that. You can also think that divorce is wrong because your religion is against it. Society has its own morals; they are different than those of any one particular group, secular or religious.

I've thought during the gay marriage debate that you could often substitute "divorced" for "gay". The Roman Catholic Church thinks that divorce is immoral, but society does not.

[Gothamite]

The fearmongering, demagoguery and outright lies coming from the other side is what frustrates me to no end.

We all know that in my opinion there's no legitimate reason under the Constitution to ban marriage equality. So maybe it's not surprising that they would have to stoop so low.

Not surprising, but still frustrating.

FYP.

I'm happy for those that this ruling made happy. I understand those it doesn't make happy. The best time will be when it's resolved for good in whatever fashion and the country can move on.

Really? You understand these people? I certainly don't. Gay New Yorkers getting married? What does it have to do with them? Why would it make them unhappy? What effect does that have on their and their families lives.

I understand them, but I'm having a hard time mustering any sympathy for them right now.

"Gosh, I'm sorry that you couldn't keep a whole group of your fellow Americans as second-class citizens. Better luck next time."

It would be like offering condolences to opponents of the 19th Amendment.

[Sodboy13]

Just a note here:

Chicago's Pride Parade is expected to start as scheduled this afternoon, despite the efforts of a person or persons who went into a storage lot last night and slashed the tires on approximately 30 floats.

The dregs of society, a.k.a. online newspaper commentors, applaud the vandalism, because apparently the parade is one gigantic liberal-government-sanctioned open-air gay orgy, which is news to me.

[Lee.]

well if it isn't a big open-air gay orgy, your afternoon just opened up. ZING

[Sodboy13]

That's not all that opened up, let me tell ya.

(Zing?)

[BlueSky]

I'm just curious on this, how does all this religion bashing make you any better than David Tyree? Just curious. Hate is hate, no matter how you mask it.

I'm not sure where all of the religion "bashing" has been in this thread... I just haven't seen it. "Religion" does not mean anti-gay-marriage: there are some religions that are more than happy to marry gays, and that has been mentioned in this thread. It is not religion bashing, then; it is a disagreement with specific religious groups. If you feel criticism of these groups has been too harsh, I'll say this: supporters of gay marriage view said groups as perpetuating a civil rights disgrace. Today, we would feel free to "bash" slave owners, or those who put burning crosses onto people's lawns, or those who were against the women's suffrage movement. Gay marriage supporters believe that an injustice is occurring right now that is on the level of those other events.

The fearmongering, demagoguery and outright lies coming from the other side is what frustrates me to no end.

We all know that in my opinion there's no legitimate reason under the Constitution to ban marriage equality. So maybe it's not surprising that they would have to stoop so low.

Not surprising, but still frustrating.

FYP.

I'm happy for those that this ruling made happy. I understand those it doesn't make happy. The best time will be when it's resolved for good in whatever fashion and the country can move on.

Really? You understand these people? I certainly don't. Gay New Yorkers getting married? What does it have to do with them? Why would it make them unhappy? What effect does that have on their and their families lives.

I do understand those who are against gay marriage, I really do. In this thread, some people think that because gays can't have children, that society shouldn't endorse their relationship. Some people believe that it's against their religion. I understand where they're coming from, but that doesn't mean that I have to agree. You can think that gay marriage is wrong, and I can respect that. You can also think that divorce is wrong because your religion is against it. Society has its own morals; they are different than those of any one particular group, secular or religious.I've thought during the gay marriage debate that you could often substitute "divorced" for "gay". The Roman Catholic Church thinks that divorce is immoral, but society does not.

Hail common sense!

It's sad how many people have the wrong idea of what the word empathy means. It means you understand - NOT support, endorse, or sympathize with - someone else's point of view. I understand those who oppose gay marriage; I equally understand those who believe an enlightened, progressive society should be concerning itself with solving poverty, finding alternative energy sources, and so on as opposed to who wants to marry who.

[Gothamite]

Empathy is more than mere understanding. It connotes a certain sharing of those feelings in response, however fleeting.

I understand bigotry. I cannot, however, fully empathize with bigots.

[Lights Out]

I equally understand those who believe an enlightened, progressive society should be concerning itself with solving poverty, finding alternative energy sources, and so on

And that can't be done at the same time as granting equality to homosexuals?

[Gothamite]

Especially since doing so is so very straightforward and easy.

[Perfect Zero]

The whole argument though is that "marriage equality" would be forced on the citizenship of a population that doesn't want anything to do with it. The voters of the State of Texas voted to approve the idea that marriage is between a man and a woman. The State of California did the same thing in Proposition 8. How can you tell the citizens of some of the most populous states that their voice doesn't count? Talk about enforcing the ideas of the few upon all. At this point, you have an option to move to a state of your choice and do what you want within their laws, and I would encourage gay couples to marry in New York and live their lives there.

My biggest fear is that this will lead down a slippery slope with many factors. Would my Church be allowed to congregate since homosexuality is a sin and they cannot become a part of the membership? Would I have to face jail time because I don't agree with the ideas of gay couples? To what extent will this go on?

At this point, the best thing to do would be to define civil unions as unions between two consenting adult humans, and leave the marriage part to the church. This would allow gays to have their victory, and allow traditional couples to keep their holy bonds of matrimony under the approval of God.

[Gothamite]

Ah, but any one interpretation of God is not particularly relevant here.

Marriage is a civil institution, which can be administered by a church, but only with the prior approval of the state.

If a church doesn't want to perform a marriage between two men, or two women, it doesn't have to. But they have no right to tell other churches, or the state, that they can't either.

[Don]

I also don't get where the popular opinion has anything to do with this. How are you and your wife (I don't know if you're married or not but go with me) impacted if your gay neighbors want to get married? They're not forcing you to marry another guy, go to your gay neighbors wedding, or anything of the sort. I'd say that you're enforcing your opinions on the gay community as a whole by restricting their right to get married. It is a right that is afforded everyone else that is being restricted to a certain group of people and that at its foundation is wrong.

[Lee.]

And that Is where the argument should really begin and end.

[Gothamite]

Exactly.

Talk about enforcing the ideas of the few upon all.

You say that as though it's a bad thing. The whole point of the Constitution is to ensure that a majority cannot infringe upon the fundamental rights of a minority.

And as for your farcical notion that you might somehow be thrown in jail; if a Catholic Church had ever once been prosecuted for not marrying divorced persons, or members of a synagogue had been arrested for not performing an Episcopal wedding, then you might have a point. Until then, the claim is absurd, and unworthy of a serious discussion.

[Perfect Zero]

I also don't get where the popular opinion has anything to do with this. How are you and your wife (I don't know if you're married or not but go with me) impacted if your gay neighbors want to get married? They're not forcing you to marry another guy, go to your gay neighbors wedding, or anything of the sort. I'd say that you're enforcing your opinions on the gay community as a whole by restricting their right to get married. It is a right that is afforded everyone else that is being restricted to a certain group of people and that at its foundation is wrong.

I'll go ahead and say that I am single if that is relevant. The question I raise is that if I tell the person that I don't want to associate with them because they are gay, is that a crime? Would I be jailed for exercising my belief that marriage is between a man and a woman? In the road that we are going down, that very well might be the case in some areas, and I think that's what scares most people off in this. In the truly civil scope, there is nothing wrong in civil unions. However, when you include the beliefs that people carry with them, it becomes a sticky situation. When you get into the voting booth, your beliefs vote with you.

I believe that gays are not equal in terms of "marriage." There is nothing anybody can do that will change my mindset of this, and that goes for a lot of people. However, if Congress or whomever was to play with wording, it would be better tolerated in the community. Nearly everybody would be satisfied with a civil union, not everybody would be satisfied with marriage. (By this, I mean straights and gays would be named in civil unions, not just gays).

Ah, but any one interpretation of God is not particularly relevant here.

Marriage is a civil institution, which can be administered by a church, but only with the prior approval of the state.

If a church doesn't want to perform a marriage between two men, or two women, it doesn't have to. But they have no right to tell other churches, or the state, that they can't either.

But does the state have the right to tell churches they have to marry gays? Would the gay couple have the right to claim discrimination? That would be a major problem.

[Don]

I also don't get where the popular opinion has anything to do with this. How are you and your wife (I don't know if you're married or not but go with me) impacted if your gay neighbors want to get married? They're not forcing you to marry another guy, go to your gay neighbors wedding, or anything of the sort. I'd say that you're enforcing your opinions on the gay community as a whole by restricting their right to get married. It is a right that is afforded everyone else that is being restricted to a certain group of people and that at its foundation is wrong.

I'll go ahead and say that I am single if that is relevant. The question I raise is that if I tell the person that I don't want to associate with them because they are gay, is that a crime? Would I be jailed for exercising my belief that marriage is between a man and a woman? In the road that we are going down, that very well might be the case in some areas, and I think that's what scares most people off in this. In the truly civil scope, there is nothing wrong in civil unions. However, when you include the beliefs that people carry with them, it becomes a sticky situation. When you get into the voting booth, your beliefs vote with you.

I believe that gays are not equal in terms of "marriage." There is nothing anybody can do that will change my mindset of this, and that goes for a lot of people. However, if Congress or whomever was to play with wording, it would be better tolerated in the community. Nearly everybody would be satisfied with a civil union, not everybody would be satisfied with marriage. (By this, I mean straights and gays would be named in civil unions, not just gays).

I'm sorry, but everything posted here is sensationalist bull . Nothing in your world will change if gay marriage is legalized. You can have your beliefs, but the fact is is that everyone can get married, whether in a church, a courthouse, a beach, by whoever, because it takes 15 minutes to fill out an application online to be ordained to wed a couple. EXCEPT GAYS. This is the big problem with denying marriage equality, plain and simple.

[Lights Out]

(By this, I mean straights and gays would be named in civil unions, not just gays).

As long as you're willing to give up the extra perks that come with marriage (recognition in other states, ability to sponsor your spouse to immigrate into the USA, government benefits, joint-tax returns, tax breaks, etc.), that'd be a fine solution.

[Gothamite]

does the state have the right to tell churches they have to marry gays? Would the gay couple have the right to claim discrimination? That would be a major problem.

Yes, it would. Which is why the answer to the two preceding questions is "No, and no."

Unless you can cite a single case in American history where a Catholic church was forced to marry practicing Jews, your fears are obviously and totally without foundation.